MrWinters
Apr 28, 03:38 PM
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
elbirth
Oct 21, 11:53 AM
Big news. 2GB Mac Pro sticks now cost same as 1GB sticks per GB.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:54 PM
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
javajedi
Oct 10, 07:10 PM
I just ran the cocoa version on a 700mhz iBook..
get this: 73 seconds! Still very slow compared to x86, but considerably faster than my 800mhz G4 w/L3 cache??
If I recall the processor in the iBook is a 750FX IBM chip.
Amazing. All the more reason to go with an IBM chip for the future Pro Macs.
Thought you guys might find this intresting..
Kevin
get this: 73 seconds! Still very slow compared to x86, but considerably faster than my 800mhz G4 w/L3 cache??
If I recall the processor in the iBook is a 750FX IBM chip.
Amazing. All the more reason to go with an IBM chip for the future Pro Macs.
Thought you guys might find this intresting..
Kevin
Phil A.
Aug 29, 04:00 PM
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
entatlrg
Mar 13, 02:04 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
skunk
Mar 16, 02:09 PM
The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. Is completely irresponsible the opposite of short-sighted?
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Tablets like the iPad, Xoom, G-Slate, heck, even smartphones like the iPhone, Droid, Incredible, etc.. are all lower case "pc"s. As in, they are computers that are personal. They aren't upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible.
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
Servers based on Intel architecture processors like the C7000 chassis blades are not lower case "pc"s, as in, they aren't personal computer systems. They are servers (also why are we talking about servers here ? Is there even any evidence Catalyst is including those in HP's and Dell's numbers ? I doubt they are...). They are however (again, the Intel variant) upper case PCs, as in IBM PC compatible .
PC (Personal Computer) is an architecture defined in the 80s by IBM. pc is a personal computer. Learn the difference boys and girls.
Should the Tablet sales be included in charts like these ? I don't think so, this is just a very pro Apple analyst group trying to make it look like Apple is having more success in a segment they have usually lagged a bit in (though in which they are still showing quite the growth and beating expectations without the iPad).
AppliedVisual
Oct 13, 07:37 PM
came up with the coupon just in the nick of time to save me even more than I expected to save - like another $250. Total bill came to only $1468.32. Amazing luck for me.
Yeah, rxse7en -- you da man!
I had been considering getting another one of these 30" Dell monitors since I love the one I've got and as big as it is, when working on compositing images from two or three 1080p sources, doubling my desktop space would be a dream. I pulled the trigger on one the other day with the recent price drop plus Dell's 15% off. Then this coupon came along. I called up Dell and they refused to apply the coupon at first so I just threw at them, well how about I cancel my order, refuse shipment and order another monitor with the coupon. ;) The guy thought about it for a bit and then decided to adjust my order.
It should be here monday, but I still have to get a sales tax issue cleared up... They charged me too much tax to begin with and then also didn't adjust it when altering my invoice. So I live in an area where I'm supposed to pay a max of 4.6% yet I'm getting charged nearly 8% of the pre-adjusted amount. Ouch. :mad:
Yeah, rxse7en -- you da man!
I had been considering getting another one of these 30" Dell monitors since I love the one I've got and as big as it is, when working on compositing images from two or three 1080p sources, doubling my desktop space would be a dream. I pulled the trigger on one the other day with the recent price drop plus Dell's 15% off. Then this coupon came along. I called up Dell and they refused to apply the coupon at first so I just threw at them, well how about I cancel my order, refuse shipment and order another monitor with the coupon. ;) The guy thought about it for a bit and then decided to adjust my order.
It should be here monday, but I still have to get a sales tax issue cleared up... They charged me too much tax to begin with and then also didn't adjust it when altering my invoice. So I live in an area where I'm supposed to pay a max of 4.6% yet I'm getting charged nearly 8% of the pre-adjusted amount. Ouch. :mad:
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 05:03 PM
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 06:24 PM
I didn't know before that "DVD Jon" is a movie star as well. He plays himself in the documentary Info Wars (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0415067/).
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
Westside guy
Apr 20, 06:03 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
This is becoming more true, but historically hasn't been the case. Fortunately Microsoft eventually learned its lessons from Slammer and the like.
This is becoming more true, but historically hasn't been the case. Fortunately Microsoft eventually learned its lessons from Slammer and the like.
Chappers
Mar 13, 12:13 PM
When pumps failed to pump in water and the back up diesel powered generators failed they ran into problems.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 03:29 PM
No I didn't... I provided an explanation as supplementary evidence to the rebuttal made by myself. You didn't explain what Sharia Law is at all.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
yes, I did explain what sharia law is.
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
EDIT: it seems a lot of muslims are misinterpreting islam somehow.
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
EDIT part 2:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
yes, I did explain what sharia law is.
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:
Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).
Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”
Now some sahih hadiths:
Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.
Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”
EDIT: it seems a lot of muslims are misinterpreting islam somehow.
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
EDIT part 2:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
I never said I was a professional. :p I just said I use those tools for the jobs I have. They seems to get pro results for me and the clients. \shrugs/
Cheers!
I never said I was a professional. :p I just said I use those tools for the jobs I have. They seems to get pro results for me and the clients. \shrugs/
Cheers!
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:49 PM
Other than for aeroplanes oil isn't subsidised here in communist Europe - in fact its heavily taxed.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:12 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
joncdixon
May 6, 01:59 AM
I have been with Sprint, T-Mobile and Now AT&T. Moving to AT&T the day after the release of the 2G iPhone.
How can this story be marked as new?!?
For the past 3 years I have told it like it is....
The iPhone is the best device on the planet: on the worst possible network!
With huge profit sharing, I feel Apple will never leave AT&T.
I will continue to use my 3G until the day they release of version 4.
How can this story be marked as new?!?
For the past 3 years I have told it like it is....
The iPhone is the best device on the planet: on the worst possible network!
With huge profit sharing, I feel Apple will never leave AT&T.
I will continue to use my 3G until the day they release of version 4.
Anuba
Jun 7, 07:35 AM
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not).
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
nehunte
Oct 7, 10:52 AM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
沒有留言:
張貼留言